multi-classing is banned (tired of characters with more dips than a Baskin-Robbins super sunday).
Right, because everyone should be forced to stay in their first job for the rest of their life.
The Reason for the Crafting Ban:
Crafting by PCs breaks the setting economy.
Players want a specific item?
either commission it (thereby generating at least 1 to 8 side plots)
or quest for it (thereby generating at least 1 to 8 side plots).
Players being able to devote skills and potentially feats to converting raw materials into finished products breaks your 'setting economy' - is this a setting that allows spellcasters to poof materials, items and creatures into existence from unlimited alternative planes of reality?
multi-classing is banned (tired of characters with more dips than a Baskin-Robbins super sunday).Right, because everyone should be forced to stay in their first job for the rest of their life.
I play with a guy who NEVER single classes, and openly admits that class dipping is the route to 'ultimate power'...
His saves are ALWAYS the highest in the group, as is his damage output and ability to just DO everything... (except full casting, obviously).
I totally understand wanting to ban multi-classing, and sympathize with anyone who has done so.
It's usually because of a single player trying to break the game (or one that has already done it).
Any combat rule introduced will apply to the PCs far more than it applies to any given enemy they face. PCs are the ones that, by virtue of narrative spotlight, are taking the hits over and over during play.
"Instant Kill" and "Critical Fumble" rules are really just an exercise in masochism (or sadism, on the part of the DM).
I quite agree, which is why I simply give the PCs the instant kill ability on the enemies and don't give it to the bad guys. It's an awesome narrative tool, and won't hurt the players win-win if I ever heard of one, and as a house rule, who cares that it's weighted in the PCs favor?
^_^
Any combat rule introduced will apply to the PCs far more than it applies to any given enemy they face. PCs are the ones that, by virtue of narrative spotlight, are taking the hits over and over during play.
"Instant Kill" and "Critical Fumble" rules are really just an exercise in masochism (or sadism, on the part of the DM).
I quite agree, which is why I simply give the PCs the instant kill ability on the enemies and don't give it to the bad guys. It's an awesome narrative tool, and won't hurt the players win-win if I ever heard of one, and as a house rule, who cares that it's weighted in the PCs favor?
^_^
It's ok for the PCs to totally destroy everything they come across. My players just like blowing off steam, and appreciate a challenge maybe once every four sessions.
Even at 12th level they go looking for kobold warrens. It's pretty funny to see a wizard punching those little buggers to death. :D
I play with a guy who NEVER single classes, and openly admits that class dipping is the route to 'ultimate power'...
As with anything, there's always more ways to restrict something than with a blanket ban. Even "you may only select two base classes or one base class and one prestige class" would go a long way to forbidding that sort of cheese.
I play with a guy who NEVER single classes, and openly admits that class dipping is the route to 'ultimate power'...As with anything, there's always more ways to restrict something than with a blanket ban. Even "you may only select two base classes or one base class and one prestige class" would go a long way to forbidding that sort of cheese.
Our solution has been to just ignore it. He doesn't try to hog the limelight, he just makes super-deadly characters. Most of the time we are happy to sit back and let him decimate stuff, we contribute as much to combat as we want to.
It's a pretty chill group, so we don't bother putting limitations on the game like that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think a big reason why sneaky tends to fail in tabletop is most DM's don't know how to tell a story with sneaky in it, and have tension. It's easy to say "you jump of the wall, killing two guys by stabbing your swords in their back as you slam them into the ground." Interesting. "You spend seven hours riding on the undercarriage of the wagon, being jostled and bumped, freezing the whole way just to sneak into the city, because you're a wanted person. Now roll to see if you get caught. Nope. You're safe." BORING.
Sneaky tends to fail in Pathfinder because it's a multi-player cooperative game designed around a group of 3-5 PCs working together to face level appropriate challenges, and, unless your entire party is sneaky types, the other players are left to sit and watch while the rogue and GM play a 1-on-1 solo adventure so the rogue can sneak in to the city and accomplish whatever goal the rogue is trying to achieve. That or the party spell casters are high enough level to be able to completely remove the need for a dedicated sneaky character at all by casting a few spells.
Boring is sitting at a table doing nothing for an hour because one guy wants to hog the spotlight and have tension filled sneaky time.
|
In our game, sneaky must go with smart. If someone plays sneaky and doesn't seem to have a clue what he's doing, clang-clang tank types say "f&~~ it" and just walk to the door and kick it open. We give sneaky maybe 1 minute of smart dedicated sneak before attention deficit disorder takes over and we all move his mini out of the way.
Recently we've had a player that was so bad at sneaking it was almost sad. He'd go scout and would turn around in fear as soon as the DM would draw a new part of the dungeon due to his advancing...
A good sneak-oriented player must be smart, assertive and with good rules mastery (not pretend rule mastery, such as trying to sneak around on an enchanted flying broomstick with average maneuverability and then claim you didn't need to make fly checks to hover or maneuver tight corridors...)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree, Rycaut. A great scene is a gate held closed magically by a necromancer, at the top of his tower. The party arrives, and the armies of minions swarm in on them, led by the Orc hero, who knows where the princess is being held captive. His nemesis, the monk, challenges him, and they end up in a one on one battle around the ramparts of the keep. The fighter holds back the hordes of minions with support from the wizard with spells and the ranger with ranged, while the sorcerer goes into a magical duel with the necromancer, trying to keep him from resurrecting all the minions the fighter is slaughtering, while the rogue climbs up the tower to get the sneak attack in on the necromancer, which will allow the party past the gate as his magic fails, causing the tower to collapse. Final battle is in the courtyard, after the tower collapses. The party is wounded, the necromancer is raising all the dead in the world, and they are all in one place, but have all had different goals and ways to achieve those goals.
Or something, lol.
And now back to Houserules. :)
I'm fairly certain that Legolas, like Aragorn, is a ranger. :)
In regards to multi-classing, I guess I come from different experiences. I have 30+ years in gaming, starting with 2st edition and basic all the way through 4th and now pathfinder. we also play characters typically from 1st - 20th level, ( we use equally divided XP so everyone advances at the same rate).
that being said, until the advent of pathfinder, the drawbacks of multi-classing/dual-classing (and yes prestige classes) almost never made it worthwhile. a single class character was almost always more powerful.
In Pathfinder, prestige classes are a worthwhile investment, but IMO, multi-classing in the chase for power, will limit your 16th-20th level powers more than what you gain in the meantime.
In regards to multi-classing, I guess I come from different experiences. I have 30+ years in gaming, starting with 2st edition and basic all the way through 4th and now pathfinder. we also play characters typically from 1st - 20th level, ( we use equally divided XP so everyone advances at the same rate).
that being said, until the advent of pathfinder, the drawbacks of multi-classing/dual-classing (and yes prestige classes) almost never made it worthwhile. a single class character was almost always more powerful.
In Pathfinder, prestige classes are a worthwhile investment, but IMO, multi-classing in the chase for power, will limit your 16th-20th level powers more than what you gain in the meantime.
A very large YMMV issue, as many people don't play at such high levels. Mainly games that I run end around the 13-15 level range, as after that the story is complete, or real life issues get in the way of the group, etc. For my part, I try not to stifle the creativity of my group, but when I see the same thing over and over, I tend to feel obligated to do something to break everyone out of the rut. That's where my monk splash limiter came from (the + to AC from WIS is limited by your monk level) as all my players save one were x/1 monk wisdom based characters... so boring...
When I joined my current group, the GM had a house rule for fumbles on a natural 1 attack roll. The rule was on a natural 1 you had to pass a DC 10 DEX check - if you failed, you dropped your weapon.
There were several problems with this. It overly punished martial characters, it didn't do anything to unarmed characters or creatures with natural weapons, It never really affected casters even if they had a critical miss with a ray based spell or the like.
The GM tried to fix these discrepancies by making it that the character missed their next attacks even in the case of natural weapons. This really just made it worse, particularly in the case of multiple attacking characters because an unlucky roll at the start of a string of attacks meant the character was screwed for that round.
However, I like the idea of critical misses to much to completely scrap it. When I picked up the GM duties this time around, I decided to make some changes to our established house rules, and put my sights squarely on this one.
Ineffable Cheese's New and Improved Critical Miss House Rule
It's sort of a mirror of the critical hit rules. If a creature rolls a natural 1 on an attack roll, it is a threat of a critical miss. The creature makes another attack roll using all the same modifiers and against the same target AC. If the confirmation roll misses the target AC, the attacking creature gains the Unbalanced condition until the start of his next turn. The Unbalanced condition is a -2 penalty to AC.
We've been using it for about 20 sessions now, and it has been very well received. It adds some texture to combat without overly screwing the martials, and without adding too much complexity.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We have another few house rules that I feel have been genuine improvements.
- When rolling HP at each level, you roll until you get a number better than half the total value of the HD - e.g., roll a d8 until you get a 5 or better. This allows for some variability, but keeps your barbarian from rolling a 1 on his d12.
- We have a form of table currency called Chits. Chits are awarded by players (or the GM) to other players for a particularly funny joke, remembering an obscure rule, doing something totally great in character, and just generally making the game more awesome. They used to be a bump in XP, but I'm now giving even XP to everyone, so now Chits can be cashed in as a +1 on a d20 roll, or two Chits can be cashed in for an action point (à la 3.5 Eberron).
- We also use an additional class of tactical movement, the Juke. It's basically a step between a double move and a run, and it can open up some nice tactical options. From our house rule document:
Juke
The juke is between a hustle and a run. The character sacrifices some maneuverability for an increase in speed, but not the speed of a straight line run.
As a full round action a character may move three movement increments up to her full speed. Each of these three increments must be straight lines, however the character can change direction between each increment. If the character changes direction before using all her available speed for that increment then the unused movement is lost.
For instance, Hograth the Half-Orc has a speed of 30'. He hears a cry down a corridor that is around a corner from him. Hograth spends his full round to juke toward the source of the cry. He moves 30' to get to a right turn in the corridor. He turns right to find the corridor is a short dog leg - he moves 20' to the left turn in the corridor. After turning left he moves another 30' further down the corridor. The remaining 10' he had from his second movement increment is lost since he was unable to move his full 30' in a straight line.
A character wearing heavy armor or carrying more than a medium load cannot juke, unless special abilities counter the normal movement penalties associated with these situations.
A character with the Run feat can move in four straight line increments during a juke when wearing light or medium armor and carrying no more than a medium load.
A character cannot juke when she has any reduction to speed.
One houserule I'm considering is changing all hit dice to d6 and adding the difference from their original hitdice as flat hitpoints. So it goes d6, d6+2, d6+4, then d6+6.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A very large YMMV issue, as many people don't play at such high levels. Mainly games that I run end around the 13-15 level range, as after that the story is complete, or real life issues get in the way of the group, etc. For my part, I try not to stifle the creativity of my group, but when I see the same thing over and over, I tend to feel obligated to do something to break everyone out of the rut. That's where my monk splash limiter came from (the + to AC from WIS is limited by your monk level) as all my players save one were x/1 monk wisdom based characters... so boring...In regards to multi-classing, I guess I come from different experiences. I have 30+ years in gaming, starting with 2st edition and basic all the way through 4th and now pathfinder. we also play characters typically from 1st - 20th level, ( we use equally divided XP so everyone advances at the same rate).
that being said, until the advent of pathfinder, the drawbacks of multi-classing/dual-classing (and yes prestige classes) almost never made it worthwhile. a single class character was almost always more powerful.
In Pathfinder, prestige classes are a worthwhile investment, but IMO, multi-classing in the chase for power, will limit your 16th-20th level powers more than what you gain in the meantime.
I'm very lucky that I have a regularly scheduled weekly game with the same group of people that I have been playing with for 20+ years.
we try to play by the rules as written as much as possible, however, we do have a couple of house rules.
1. stats are 17, 15, 13, 13, 11, 11 arranged as you like, then apply racial mods.
2. all casters are spontaneous casters.
3. No Evil characters
When I joined my current group, the GM had a house rule for fumbles on a natural 1 attack roll. The rule was on a natural 1 you had to pass a DC 10 DEX check - if you failed, you dropped your weapon.
There were several problems with this. It overly punished martial characters, it didn't do anything to unarmed characters or creatures with natural weapons, It never really affected casters even if they had a critical miss with a ray based spell or the like.
The GM tried to fix these discrepancies by making it that the character missed their next attacks even in the case of natural weapons. This really just made it worse, particularly in the case of multiple attacking characters because an unlucky roll at the start of a string of attacks meant the character was screwed for that round.
However, I like the idea of critical misses to much to completely scrap it. When I picked up the GM duties this time around, I decided to make some changes to our established house rules, and put my sights squarely on this one.
Ineffable Cheese's New and Improved Critical Miss House Rule
It's sort of a mirror of the critical hit rules. If a creature rolls a natural 1 on an attack roll, it is a threat of a critical miss. The creature makes another attack roll using all the same modifiers and against the same target AC. If the confirmation roll misses the target AC, the attacking creature gains the Unbalanced condition until the start of his next turn. The Unbalanced condition is a -2 penalty to AC.
We've been using it for about 20 sessions now, and it has been very well received. It adds some texture to combat without overly screwing the martials, and without adding too much complexity.
No, the session where one player had a fit when the monster got a nat 20, then a nat 1 on the confirmation roll, soured me on all fumbles till they cremate my dead body. It had hit, and it could not drop the weapon. He fought for the stupidity till it was too late to play. You play how you want to. For me, a nat 1 means you miss or you do not confirm the crit, and the game goes on.
A houserule that I brought up in the subsystem hate thread: swarms are not immune to melee weapon attacks. Instead, weapons only do their damage dice with no riders. Vital Strike does not boost this damage, but Cleave adds an extra die as does Great Cleave. Whirlwind Attack adds 4 dice.
Still leaves swarms as very much not fun to fight once you've ran out of alchemist's fires, but at least you still can fight them.
One houserule I'm considering is changing all hit dice to d6 and adding the difference from their original hitdice as flat hitpoints. So it goes d6, d6+2, d6+4, then d6+6.
I was thinking of something like this, but more along these lines:
Starting hitpoints are determined by a chosen background (which also determines a few other things). This is normally the max die of the type, so for example, a Warrior background would have 10 hitpoints (so 6, 8, 10 and 12).
Then, each hit dice (including the first) gives the average hitpoints, round down: 3, 4, 5, and 6.
This is your basic hitpoints.
After that, you gain bonus hitpoints based on your base attack bonus. At +1 BAB, +4 BAB and every additional 4 BAB (+8, +12, +16 and +20) you gain an additional 1d8 hitpoints that are rolled each day, after a normal rest.
The toughness feat increases hitpoints like it normally does, but also increases the die size of the bonus daily hitpoints to 1d12.
.
Minimum is about the same as the average roll in the old method, although first level is boosted.
Maximum is lower than the maximum roll across all levels used to be (about 80%). However, you aren't locked in, you reroll every day with rest.
Note: Toughness brings this back up to allowing numbers close to the same maximum, though a seriously upped lower limit.
Sometimes you are having a bad day, other times you are really on your game.
Sacrificed a chance at super high maximum, for guaranteed average minimum and randomness isn't locked in (thereby preventing crippling rolls). It also means something to be a warrior when it comes to hitpoints, both with the base amount and the extra rolled each day.
I've been trying to figure out a different way to roll hitpoints. Here's something I've come up with and would like some feedback:
Roll your hit die twice and take the best. If both dice would give you less than half, then add them together.
Example: Sneaky the Rogue rolls a 4 and 1, his hitpoints that level would then be 4+con. Next level he rolls a 3 and 2, his hitpoints that level would then be 5+con.
I've been trying to figure out a different way to roll hitpoints. Here's something I've come up with and would like some feedback:
Roll your hit die twice and take the best. If both dice would give you less than half, then add them together.
Example: Sneaky the Rogue rolls a 4 and 1, his hitpoints that level would then be 4+con. Next level he rolls a 3 and 2, his hitpoints that level would then be 5+con.
This distribution drastically favors the higher die rolls, and makes it very unlikely that you'll get anything less than half. Interestingly, it makes the max die result the most common roll. If that's something you want, then it's a valid solution (it's a little roll-heavy for my tastes, but that's a matter of opinion).
To give you an idea of how much it changes the distribution, I tested it for a d8 hit die. The chances of rolling each of the numbers (1-8) is as follows:
1...... 0%
2...... 1.6%
3...... 3.1%
4...... 4.7%
5...... 20.3%
6...... 21.9%
7...... 24.4%
8...... 25.5%
The average result of this distribution is 6.35, compared to the usual average of 4.5.
Compare this to the traditional way of rolling, which gives an equal 12.5% chance of rolling each number. I didn't test it for the other dice, but I'd expect a similar distribution.
It will absolutely result in higher typical hp rolls. Not necessarily a bad thing, but it depends on what you want.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Combat Maneuvers Only provoke on a failed check.
I cannot believe this is the first time I've seen that, heard it, or thought about it, but I am going to (players agreeable, of course) implement this rule immediately. It suddenly makes combat maneuvers a viable mechanic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Combat Maneuvers Only provoke on a failed check.
I cannot believe this is the first time I've seen that, heard it, or thought about it, but I am going to (players agreeable, of course) implement this rule immediately. It suddenly makes combat maneuvers a viable mechanic.
It also makes more sense. For example: Instead of you going for a grapple and the target somehow being able to REACT faster than you ACT, you try to grab him/her and then when you fail their reaction follows through and hits you on your recovery.
I've been trying to figure out a different way to roll hitpoints. Here's something I've come up with and would like some feedback:
Roll your hit die twice and take the best. If both dice would give you less than half, then add them together.
Example: Sneaky the Rogue rolls a 4 and 1, his hitpoints that level would then be 4+con. Next level he rolls a 3 and 2, his hitpoints that level would then be 5+con.Stands up and says"Yeah, lets do that!"
This distribution drastically favors the higher die rolls, and makes it very unlikely that you'll get anything less than half. Interestingly, it makes the max die result the most common roll. If that's something you want, then it's a valid solution (it's a little roll-heavy for my tastes, but that's a matter of opinion).
To give you an idea of how much it changes the distribution, I tested it for a d8 hit die. The chances of rolling each of the numbers (1-8) is as follows:
1...... 0%
2...... 1.6%
3...... 3.1%
4...... 4.7%
5...... 20.3%
6...... 21.9%
7...... 24.4%
8...... 25.5%The average result of this distribution is 6.35, compared to the usual average of 4.5.
Compare this to the traditional way of rolling, which gives an equal 12.5% chance of rolling each number. I didn't test it for the other dice, but I'd expect a similar distribution.
It will absolutely result in higher typical hp rolls. Not necessarily a bad thing, but it depends on what you want.
Starts chanting "Higher HP!"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've been trying to figure out a different way to roll hitpoints. Here's something I've come up with and would like some feedback:
Roll your hit die twice and take the best. If both dice would give you less than half, then add them together.
Example: Sneaky the Rogue rolls a 4 and 1, his hitpoints that level would then be 4+con. Next level he rolls a 3 and 2, his hitpoints that level would then be 5+con.This distribution drastically favors the higher die rolls, and makes it very unlikely that you'll get anything less than half. Interestingly, it makes the max die result the most common roll. If that's something you want, then it's a valid solution (it's a little roll-heavy for my tastes, but that's a matter of opinion).
To give you an idea of how much it changes the distribution, I tested it for a d8 hit die. The chances of rolling each of the numbers (1-8) is as follows:
1...... 0%
2...... 1.6%
3...... 3.1%
4...... 4.7%
5...... 20.3%
6...... 21.9%
7...... 24.4%
8...... 25.5%The average result of this distribution is 6.35, compared to the usual average of 4.5.
Compare this to the traditional way of rolling, which gives an equal 12.5% chance of rolling each number. I didn't test it for the other dice, but I'd expect a similar distribution.
It will absolutely result in higher typical hp rolls. Not necessarily a bad thing, but it depends on what you want.
Yeah, that looks like a good distribution to me. Thanks for running the math!
I wanted a system that gives you higher than average HP, more consistent HP, still requires rolling and doesn't favor one type of hit die more than another. Every other house rule I've seen seemed to miss at least 1 of those criteria. I do kinda like Kaisoku's provided method, but that is WAY to much rolling for my liking.
Another rule I just came up with that would give very similar probability:
You get half your hit die plus half of a rolled hit die (3+1d3, 4+1d4, 5+1d5, 6+1d6)
Something I would probably rather do as a GM is just use the hit die progression below, but it's not very elegant and it kinda breaks down for d12.
2+1d4; 3+1d5; 4+1d6; 5+1d7 (maybe 4+1d8 re-roll 1s?)
|
I came up with a house rule to balance Casters against Martials:
Scaling Spell Failure
Spell failure chance will increase by 10% per Spell Level, and decrease by 5% per Caster Level to a minimum of (Spell Level * 5)%.
At CL 1, a cantrip will only have a 15% spell failure chance, decreasing to 0% by CL 4. A Level 1 spell would decrease to a minimum of 5%, and a Level 2 spell to a minimum of 10%
This would lead to a new form of Metamagic;
Reliable Spell
Doubles a spell's casting time and makes it take up two spell slots (or a single slot of higher level), but eliminates failure chance altogether.
This new house rule might also open the gateway to Divine Failure Chance and Divine Metamagic, but nobody wants to open that can of worms just yet.
- Certainty (the Unleashed rogue talent) applies to all Rogue's Edge selections, not just one.
- Crippling Strike can deal 2 Dex damage, instead of Str, at the rogue's option.
- Swift Poison allows you to apply poison as a swift action, not a move action.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This one is about rolling stats: Everyone rolls a "4d6 drop lowest" series, including the GM.
Then every player is allowed to pick one of the rolled series and assign it in the order they want. Multiple players can pick the same series. Villains and NPCs will be create using these stats as well.
This way everyone gets to roll, no one is stuck with crappy stats while the lucky guy sits on its awesome series.
|
|
Simplified Metamagic
Instead of a multitude of feats for different Metamagic effects, now you just have three feats to keep track of; Basic Metamagic, Intermediate Metamagic and Advanced Metamagic. This keeps things simple.
Metamagic On-Demand
[i]Instead of preparing spells as higher level, you have a daily number of Metamagic slots that you can use on demand. The number of slots needed increases in proportion to the level of the spell and the class of Metamagic in use (Basic, Intermediate or Advanced).
Metamagic Spell Failure
Using Metamagic increases chance of Spell failure in proportion to spell level and the class of Metamagic in use (Basic, Intermediate or Advanced)
Alternatively, spells are only subject to spell failure when Metamagic is in use, but the failure chance doesn't increase except for Cantrips.
Arcane/Divine transparency
Divine magic can now use Metamagic, but is now subject to spell failure chance.
This house rule is a double-edged sword and should be used with caution.
Rechargeable Spells
By killing an opponent or scoring a critical hit with a spel, you will regain one spell slot. This does not work against helpless opponents.
Everyone rolls at the beginning of the campaign and we build a set of arrays. Players can pick amongst them for both their starting and later pcs. A new player joining can roll once and either take their rolls or pick amongst the existing arrays (their array gets added to the spreadsheet). Since I tend to run published AP's these days I'll mostly use the AP's stats but may use the arrays or similar to make any needed new npc's.
That's how I started doing it years back.
I added an extra option: I figured out the point buy value of the rolled stats and gave the option to use point buy instead, but at a lower point value than the rolled. Give up the higher maximums in favour of being able to choose your stats completely.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A houserule that I brought up in the subsystem hate thread: swarms are not immune to melee weapon attacks. Instead, weapons only do their damage dice with no riders. Vital Strike does not boost this damage, but Cleave adds an extra die as does Great Cleave. Whirlwind Attack adds 4 dice.
Still leaves swarms as very much not fun to fight once you've ran out of alchemist's fires, but at least you still can fight them.
This is a very clever idea, but here's why I won't use it (or anything like it pertaining to other monsters, with special rules to bypass DR, overcome SR, counter insubstantiality, detect invisibility, etc):
Believe it or not, it actually adds to the game if you sometimes have to flee from a battle that, for some tactical reason, you can't win. Without rules like this, the game bogs down into a never-ending chain of rooms where enough d20s and spells will always result in the players winning (barring miscalculations by the DM).
When the beefy half-orc barbarian, who has never encountered a problem he couldn't destroy with his greataxe, opens the dungeon door to find a dozen swarms of poisonous spiders... he should be thinking, "Oh, crap!" Not just "Hmm, guess this is going to take 3 hits instead of just 1."
Let me put this another way. Go back through every fantasy (and, hell, sci-fi too) battle from literature, television, and film. I'd say less than half of them have heroes actually standing face-to-face with their enemies. The rest involve one side or the other making a fighting retreat or outright fleeing from overwhelming odds, being outclassed by villains, or because they've exhausted their resources. How much would it have sucked if the LotR battle against the Balrog had ended with Legolas shooting it once in the eye and killing it? With the Millennium Falcon flying circles around the Star Destroyer and slowly whittling it down with laser fire? If Furiosa had just slammed on the brakes in her war wagon and Fury Road was just a 2-hour gunfight in the desert?
The point is: Not only are you not supposed to win every fight, but sometimes having to flee can make for a much better encounter! If anyone still doubts this, remember that Patfhinder has an entire rules set for chases and escapes. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Drawing and using a potion or oil can both be done as part of the same move action.
You can make a half charge as a standard action.
If you have the two-weapon fighting feat (or something similar, like flurry) you can make an attack with both weapons as a standard action.
Adapted from the unchained action economy: you can make up to two iterative attacks as a standard action, assuming that you've reached BAB 6.
This is a very clever idea, but here's why I won't use it (or anything like it pertaining to other monsters, with special rules to bypass DR, overcome SR, counter insubstantiality, detect invisibility, etc):
Believe it or not, it actually adds to the game if you sometimes have to flee from a battle that, for some tactical reason, you can't win. Without rules like this, the game bogs down into a never-ending chain of rooms where enough d20s and spells will always result in the players winning (barring miscalculations by the DM).
When the beefy half-orc barbarian, who has never encountered a problem he couldn't destroy with his greataxe, opens the dungeon door to find a dozen swarms of poisonous spiders... he should be thinking, "Oh, crap!" Not just "Hmm, guess this is going to take 3 hits instead of just 1."
Let me put this another way. Go back through every fantasy (and, hell, sci-fi too) battle from literature, television, and film. I'd say less than half of them have heroes actually standing face-to-face with their enemies. The rest involve one side or the other making a fighting retreat or outright fleeing from overwhelming odds, being outclassed by villains, or because they've exhausted their resources. How much would it have sucked if the LotR battle against the Balrog had ended with Legolas shooting it once in the eye and killing it? With the Millennium Falcon flying circles around the Star Destroyer and slowly whittling it down with laser fire? If Furiosa had just slammed on the brakes in her war wagon and Fury Road was just a 2-hour gunfight in the desert?
The point is: Not only are you not supposed to win every fight, but sometimes having to flee can make for a much better encounter! If anyone still doubts this, remember that Patfhinder has an entire rules set for chases and escapes. :)
I think you're forgetting one very crucial detail from these examples: the good guys were outmatched. In other words, the fights they were fleeing from were MASSIVELY beyond the challenge they could reasonably take on. The balrog? Yeah, that thing is a 1st Age horror of fire and death made by a dark god out of other divine beings. An Imperial Star Destroyer is capable of glassing a planet with its turbolasers, which are basically repeating long-range light-speed nuclear weapons. Also, it has 72 TIE fighters it can launch for combat at a moments notice. Furiosa had only one gun-worthy arm, was in a vehicle not meant for combat, had no real battle-worthy companions, and was vastly outnumbered (until Max joined them). It'd basically be her versus dozens of psychos with everything from grenades on sticks to harpoon launchers to shotguns and more. In all of these cases, the good guys are massively outmatched, to the point that in Pathfinder terms the CR difference rating would be beyond 'Epic Battle'. The scenario with the barbarian you're laying out is far more analogous to if Han and Chewie ran away from, say, a single TIE fighter. Or if Aragorn and Co. had elected to flee when confronted by the Uruk Hai. Or if Max had thought fighting Furiosa was a no-win scenario and just skedaddled. These are appropriate level challenges that the characters SHOULD be both permitted AND encouraged to take on with a chance of success. Saying that the PCs should sometimes just be arbitrarily forced to retreat 'because it makes a good story' in order to justify one badly conceived monster trait is not only an insult to whatever players you spring this on, but an insult to the heroic archetype embodied in these fictional characters as well.
|
|
Saying that the PCs should sometimes just be arbitrarily forced to retreat
This is not what I was trying to say. Apologies if it was confusing. Having to retreat from a battle should never be an arbitrary matter.
What I'm saying is that expecting to win every single battle is unrealistic, mechanically bland, and results in a boring, linear narrative. Introducing house rules specifically to make sure the PCs can overcome every single encounter regardless of their lack of certain abilities, group composition, helpful equipment, tactical foresight, or effective improvisation is a bad idea.
What would be analogous with swarms for wizards? Is there a golem or something that's completely invulnerable to magic in all its forms?
Saying that the PCs should sometimes just be arbitrarily forced to retreatThis is not what I was trying to say. Apologies if it was confusing. Having to retreat from a battle should never be an arbitrary matter.
What I'm saying is that expecting to win every single battle is unrealistic, mechanically bland, and results in a boring, linear narrative. Introducing house rules specifically to make sure the PCs can overcome every single encounter regardless of their lack of certain abilities, group composition, helpful equipment, tactical foresight, or effective improvisation is a bad idea.
No one's saying the PCs should win every single battle. What we're saying that they should have a CHANCE to win where the APL <-> CR range is appropriate. Otherwise, why have it presented as a battle in the first place? Just introduce it as a reverse chase scenario, where the PCs have to run away from the stampeding dire rhino herd, or the air-borne insane celestial spider apocalypse, or whatever. If you're going to present it as COMBAT, let it be fought (and won) as COMBAT. Not doing so because you want something cinematic is disingenuous, serving neither the story nor the enjoyment of the group. Now, if you're doing this as a free-form exploration kind of thing, then it's fine if the PCs wander into a APL + 10 encounter and get thrashed because they ignored all the warnings. Just make sure the warnings are there in the first place for them to see.
What would be analogous with swarms for wizards? Is there a golem or something that's completely invulnerable to magic in all its forms?
Nothing is every 100% immune to all magic, but colossi are a close second. Their magic immunity basically extends as a selective anti-magic aura around them. Shuts down even summons. That's a MAJOR upgrade from how golems work. Of course, colossi are mythic creatures, so there's that factor to consider in discussions of 'balance'.
|
|
If you're going to present it as COMBAT, let it be fought (and won) as COMBAT. Not doing so because you want something cinematic is disingenuous, serving neither the story nor the enjoyment of the group.
Hmm, my point is still not getting through. Sorry if this is really mercurial.
I'm not suggesting GMs intentionally add no-win scenarios to their adventures, just saying that, if the party occasionally runs into something they're not equipped to deal with, you shouldn't introduce house rules to ensure they can always win.
In the above barbarian vs swarm example (which is based on the originally proposed house rule to nerf swarms), I think it's actually kind of fun and exciting that the barbarian would encounter something he can't just chop to pieces. Maybe the wily berserker learns a thing or two from the situation and starts packing a few vials of alchemist's fire so he won't get burned (ha!) next time. :)
So, if we are going off the cr equivalency, something that makes a fighters main shtick a non starter should probably be mythic.
If you're going to present it as COMBAT, let it be fought (and won) as COMBAT. Not doing so because you want something cinematic is disingenuous, serving neither the story nor the enjoyment of the group.Hmm, my point is still not getting through. Sorry if this is really mercurial.
I'm not suggesting GMs intentionally add no-win scenarios to their adventures, just saying that, if the party occasionally runs into something they're not equipped to deal with, you shouldn't introduce house rules to ensure they can always win.
In the above barbarian vs swarm example (which is based on the originally proposed house rule to nerf swarms), I think it's actually kind of fun and exciting that the barbarian would encounter something he can't just chop to pieces. Maybe the wily berserker learns a thing or two from the situation and starts packing a few vials of alchemist's fire so he won't get burned (ha!) next time. :)
So, we're reducing the barbarian to doing 1d6 x 1.5 damage every round against these bugs. Same with the fighter. And the rogue. And the cavalier. And the monk. And the paladin. And the ranger. Should I go on? I mean, it's not like physical combat, with a HEAVY emphasis on melee, is the only things some of these classes are actually good at, right?
You do realize that by CR 5, swarms have about 50 hp, such as with these guys? That's a lot of alchemist's fire for a CR 5 party to have. Gods forbid you give them the fiendish simple template or instead encounter their nastier cousins. Or, is it now expected that the party front-line and second-stringer each carry a dozen+ vials minimum of both alchemist's fire AND acid on them at all times? What about these jerks, for when you're higher level? Fast healing isn't shut down by anything other than death, so unless you're lobbing a couple dozen vials of alchemist's fire a round and rolling a six on each damage dice, you ain't winning without AoE. And what about when the GM takes advantage of the Simple Monster Creation rules from Unchained, making a high CR diminutive/fine sized swarm with their own flair and set of special abilities? The hp totals for such baddies reach 200 for expert at CR 14, earlier for combatants. Are we supposed to just ignore these and never ever use them?
I think I've made my point. Expecting certain classes to carry mounds of certain very specific alchemical weapons just to be able to even attempt to deal a tiny bit of damage to a very common subtype of enemy when those classes are all about mastery of combat is unfairly punishing. As with everything else in the game, wizards and similar spellcasting classes at least some have ways around personal anti-magic and similar monster abilities. Fighters, barbarians, and similar classes fighting swarms is just an exercise in player frustration and bad game design.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
In most media that involved swarms, it was either treated as an area effect (you waded through it, taking a bit of damage, and moved on... the whole swarm didn't follow you to attack as one), or the swarm was warded off in some way (waving a torch to clear a path).
Typically, people don't "kill swarms" in most media... they scare them off, endure it, or just avoid them.
If swarms were relegated to trap/hazard status, instead of "hitpoint attrition combat entities", I'd be ok with that.